BrooklynIRT

Can you explain?

But what about situations where a specific yard needs its equipment back for maintenance ASAP? Would you not still have to make the circuitous deadhead trip if you were on the but operating a 239 St train or on the but operating a Unionport train? Will the new strip maps alone mean that any train can enter FB on any pocket track and that the route selector at Newkirk will become obsolete?

Actually Snowblock, I have had similar experiences with the forum since the new format was implemented. In my cases I would be keeping up with a thread and the replies all along and I would see every reply in the order in which it was posted..or so I thought. I would look at certain threads and be going through all the replies to the threads, and then suddenly I would see a reply within a thread that should have been there the day before or a couple of days earlier (I have only seen one 'oddball' reply in any thread in which this anomaly has occurred so far, never more than that). And sure enough it shows up in the order in which it was posted, among other persons' replies which I saw before I ever saw the oddball reply. For example user "Y" starts a topic, several replies are posted, then user "X" posts a reply, then several other replies are posted, and while going through the thread at any time I see all replies posted before and after that posted by user "X," but not that posted by user "X." Then one day, typically a day after user "X" made the post, I finally see it and it is in its chronological order among the replies I already saw.

Never mind, I looked back several posts in the thread and realized you were referring to his comment about 6th Ave trains at 59CC.

Context/clarification/explanation please?

Takes too long and cannot be done if train is crowded. These days I am tall enough to see through the little window on the R62/62A cab door and look out the front, so in the interest of working conditions I prefer that the cars all have transverse cabs anyway. I can tell going from cab to cab is annoying and there is obviously less space for crews.

Threxx- Actually battery runs even on the are rare regardless of how late the train is because the trains on that line get a crapload of recovery time at FB when the is not going there. On the weekends a train is typically scheduled to leave FB almost 20 minutes (sometimes a couple more) after it is due there. trainfan- The has more problems during off-hours than during rush hours I think. Off-hour line capacity is not really affected by FB terminal at all since there are fewer TPH needed in general (for now at least) during those times. If you had 10 TPH on the , 6 TPH on the , and 7.5 TPH on the during midday hours, FB could handle it despite the speed restrictions and without CBTC. This is all assuming they change track geometry by Utica so the Utica/New Lots swap can take place. I wonder how much it costs and how long it takes to take out a couple of sections of solid track, replace them with switches, and if necessary eliminate a support column or two to make room for a single crossover track connecting two parallel tracks.

I said the should terminate at Utica, not Flatbush. If they truncated the to Utica they could run fewer TPH on that line than they do now while running more TPH on the than they do now. Its biggest problem is the Bronx I think. It makes most of its stops and spends most of its time in the Bronx, runs local there, and is the only service connecting all of those neighborhoods to upper Harlem and the West Side. I suspect that all of this as well as the fact that its headway is not the best (it should be more like the ) causes it to screw up so much. As for why it gets delayed so much before it even gets to Manhattan (southbound) I could only guess that it happens because of flagging on the WPR line during off-hours but I would think they would be finished with this by now. If that is not it then the only other possibility is that just one too many people hold the doors at one too many stops during off-hours. In a sense the should be to the what the is to the . The continues for like another 40 minutes north of 135 while the just has a few minutes left in its trip and at the other end the should not even be running to New Lots because the convention is that the express train ( in this case) serves the areas that are further from the CBDs while the locals end closer to or within the CBDs. I do not know which of the two 7th Ave services carries more people east of Franklin most of the time, but if the southern terminals were Utica and Flatbush rather than New Lots and Flatbush there obviously would be a reason to run more 7th Ave-Nostrand trains than 7th Ave-Utica trains since there would be much, much more ridership on the former than on the latter east of Franklin. It should not be that difficult to take measures that would make the a much better line than it is now. All that are needed are a few switches between Utica and Sutter to make the Utica/New Lots terminal swap possible.

I hope that time listed on that clock at Beverley/Nostrand was an error, but one Sunday afternoon in January at around 5pm I was at 96 St waiting for a deuce to Junction, the clock said the next one was due up in 19 minutes, and sure enough I waited that long for the damn train. I think one came before it. It was a day when the deuce was local south of TSQ and the were terminating at Penn. Or it might have been the ending at Penn and ending at 14. Either way the deuce was the only 7th Ave service running south of 14.

They must extend the to New Lots full-time while truncating the to Utica so they can run fewer TPH on that line and more TPH on the , which needs them damn it! What time did you take that shot? It seems like something is always going on with the in the Bronx..

Some weird things that happened with the announcements on a I rode on Friday: 1. I boarded at 3rd Ave-149 St and rode to the Junction, and the train said "this is a Manhattan-bound 5 local train" all the way until Bowling Green. After opening the doors at Borough Hall it said "this is a Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue-bound 5 express train" like it was supposed to, but never said "this is a Brooklyn-bound 5 express train." 2. At Bowling Green, the train said "transfer is available to the 4 train" as if it were terminating at BG; I guess the explanation for that is that they did not update the announcements after they began sending the to Brooklyn during midday hours a few years ago. But even weirder was that Dianne Thompson's voice was saying "transfer is available to the 4 train!" It was the same announcement that the makes at Nevins Street when the is not running to Brooklyn and is probably the same one made at 149 St-Concourse during overnight hours when the latter is not running south of E 180 St. Although some Manhattan-bound trains have Charlie Pellett's voice say "transfer is available to the 3 and 4 trains" at Nevins Street even though the was already announced at Franklin. 3. At Newkirk, Jessica Ettinger-Gottesman's voice said, "the next and last stop is" and then another woman's voice said "Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College." Then when we got there Jessica's voice said "this is" and the same mystery woman's voice said "Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College." Sounded like Dianne. Could it have been the old announcement? But I thought the old announcement just said "this is a Flatbush Avenue-bound 2 train," "this is a Flatbush Avenue-bound 5 express train," the next and last stop is Flatbush Avenue" and this was the first time I heard a full sentence being played using two voices. I am familiar with announcements like "transfer is available to the 3 and 4 trains" in Dianne's voice and then "transfer is available to the Franklin Avenue shuttle" in Charlie's voice on the , but those are obviously two separate sentences. Weird stuff.

Guest18, these track maps may help you: http://nycsubway.org/maps/track.html And here are some close-ups of that 125 St/Lexington Ave station area so you can hopefully see how a or gets to/from the Lexington Ave Local tracks (the tracks that the always uses and the uses during overnight hours when it runs local, note that the is just a shuttle in the Bronx from Dyre Ave to E 180 St during those times) immediately before entering the Bronx or immediately after leaving the Bronx: http://images.nycsub...p/pm_west_2.png http://images.nycsub...ail-125-lex.png This map shows you one of the ways in which a Lexington Ave Local train gets to/from the Lexington Ave Express tracks at the other end of the Lexington Ave subway, as well as one of the ways in which a Lexington Ave Express train gets to/from the Lexington Ave Local tracks down there. This is what allows trains to run local from Grand Central to 125 St: http://images.nycsub...etail-14-28.png

More service can be added to the if they simply add a couple of switches east of Utica to allow the run to New Lots full-time while ending the at Utica. Then service can be cut while service is increased. To increase weekday service on Nostrand they will probably have to modify Flatbush to increase its capacity so they can send more trains down Nostrand, but on the weekends they can send more trains down Nostrand without modifying the terminal. Either way with the ending at Utica they could probably run 4 TPH on that line on weekends while running no fewer than 6 TPH on the and it would help out a lot on the Bronx end. There was a lot of sticky black junk covering the "LENOX AVE" and "LEXINGTON AVE" labels on the route selector at 3 Ave-149 St for the southbound trains up until today. It was removed by a henchman.

Why were the speakers at Van Cortlandt Park saying about 1.5 hour ago that "because of a signal malfunction at Nevins St, there is no service between Manhattan and Brooklyn" when I came home and looked at MTA's site and it said "good service" for both the 7th Ave and Lex lines? Was it a speaker test or a message backlog or a speaker malfunction of sorts?

How frequently are they going to run the during rush hours once phase I is complete? Every 4 minutes as opposed to 6? Are they going to be running the at that point as well or after they complete another phase? I forgot whether they will have a place to terminate the once phase one is done; it does not appear that they do. How frequently will that line run?

Why do they come from so far to board the IRT at Utica? Is it that they want to avoid waiting for the infrequent at the IND local stations out there? Does it have to do with most of them wanting the more than the or something like that? It does not seem like the is that infrequent but are they trying to avoid waiting for the if the is not frequent enough for them? I mention the because it is somewhat relevant, but the emphasis is on the since the is much closer to the B14 than the is.

Do that many people really use the B44 to get from Flatbush, Crown Heights, and East Flatbush all the way up to the ? What is needed is something cost-neutral, ideally. New York Ave service is more important for people going to Fulton and points south since the B44 is on Bedford north of Fulton right now. People who want to go north of Fulton (and at Fulton usually half the bus empties out, right?) or some place along Rogers or west of it are not in bad shape if they have to walk to Rogers for the SBS, because with the B44 LT they traverse Fulton from NY to Bedford by going through bad traffic. For the SBS they just traverse whatever east-west block they are on by walking, not sitting in traffic, not going through the S-turn, and then riding a SBS bus that goes through less traffic than the B44 does now and (except for the cut stops) leaves them in the same place as the B44 LT does now. Again this is all for the people who want to go north of Fulton and, depending on the destination in that area, those who want Fulton itself. **They really should re-open those Bedford Ave entrances/exits on the ** If the person does not want to walk to the SBS stops and wants to go north of Fulton s/he just has to use the NY Ave service (B44 local or B49 if it goes there or your B40 if it goes there or w/e).

All northbound B49 service, whether they expand the B49 LT or not, should just use New York Ave if the B44 local on New York by itself turns out to be insufficient. Leave Rogers without local service. Probably not a permanent solution, but costs nothing and might be better than MTA's proposal which might equate to too much service on Rogers.

All hail the almighty East Side IRT!

You can chalk it up to final examinations. Also I would not have much to contribute since I do not really want anything altered (read: B44 SBS) except that the B4 should return to Plumb Beach full-time. And of course the B64, B2, etc. Also service frequencies, but I never really developed a 100% [financially] workable idea to justify better frequencies on the B4. The B44 local can go to Knapp every 20 minutes if one group of people makes a big deal about too much service while one group of people (possibly the same group) still wants B44 local service back there. Those who really need the locals can wait, those who do not care about locals (read: BrooklynIRT and other able-bodied people who need to get to school or work quickly on a regular basis) can walk to SBS stops. The B44 SBS does not need to go to SB station to access the B49. KCC students who use the B44 [sBS] can directly access the B49 if the B49 is modified to transfer to the B44 at Nostrand but not serve SB station anymore: Northbound B49 from KCC via West End, E 14, Shore Pkwy south, Nostrand, Emmons, Ocean to Bed-Stuy. Non-stop on Shore Pkwy and Emmons between E 14 or Ocean and Nostrand. Southbound B49 from Bed-Stuy via Ocean, Shore Pkwy south, Nostrand, Emmons, West End to KCC. I know I might sound hypocritical since I was going on about the B4 and its loop around SB station about a week ago, but whatever. I left that alone eventually.

Was not present at meeting.

If you want to send a bus from the Rockaways to the BMT I think your best course of action is to operate it to Newkirk somehow. Try Flatbush, "J", Ocean, Foster. Non-stop north of "J". But then seat availability on the train becomes a problem. I know you want to improve the connectivity between SB neighborhood and the Rockaways and I support that, but I am just not so sure people would want to use the Q51 to get from the Rockaways to the BMT if it followed that circuitous (not saying that to be mean; it is just my observation/perception) route. For purposes of neighborhood connectivity, the Q51 is good. For purposes of relieving the IRT (*if it needs to be relieved*), another solution is needed. It is difficult because it seems like it would require you to re-route the Q35 since there is only so much $ to work with. But then it makes things more difficult for those who actually need the IRT and causes the Q35 to miss a very popular (and increasingly popular) commercial hub and bus transfers. And the B41 loses a source of relief and this new routing sorta duplicates the B9 etc. Do more people ride the B9 to the from points south of "L" or the B41/Q35 to the ? Were more people using the B9 to the over the B41/Q35 to the when the was local? Or other times when there was no Brighton express and all Brighton services stopped at "M"? My apologies for the other post Allan. I let off a lot of steam. I simply prefer that you not go on about the purported dangerousness of the Junction. Fair enough?

Hey, the IRT is still needed for a lot of major destinations that the BMT does not serve, Allan. And again, the B44 in its current form is unused access as far as I am concerned, because most people can walk from its first stop to SB station faster than the bus can get from the first stop to its first subway connection. Do you not find this rather pathetic? It currently makes more sense to use the express bus, drive, or take the BMT to Atlantic and transfer to the IRT than it does to ride the B44 to the IRT if you want a part of Manhattan served by the IRT but not the BMT. The B36 shuttles seemed pretty indicative of the ineffectiveness (due to slowness) of the B44 in getting people from points south of "U" to a subway. I mean, people still use it to get from points south of "U" to the IRT, but still it has to feel like a bus ride from hell for those rushing to work or school since it stops on every block south of "U" and the limited hardly saves any time north of "U". As far as the crowding of each line goes that only matters for people who have a choice of either the IRT or the BMT to get where they want to go. In that case, more power to them because now the IRT will be more easily accessible. So they can figure out which option they prefer or if they want to break the monotony they can now switch between lines every couple of days. Not reasonable under current conditions, again, due to the slowness of the B44. As far as line preference goes it is still not completely clear to me which line is easier to find a seat on since different people have different accounts on A LOT of this stuff (seat availiability, which line is more crowded, speed, delays, etc). I will either have to experience it myself many times or see a lot of video or photo evidence in order to determine whether the BMT or IRT is the go-to line if one wants a seat going in either direction or whatever parameters determine the rider's preference. The B44 SBS should also allow people who can take either the IRT or BMT to just board whichever bus they see first (SBS or B4, SBS or B36, SBS or B3, SBS or B7/B82) instead of being restricted to the crosstown lines. And another thing. Would you be protesting the idea of directing more people to the IRT despite the lower passenger capacities even if they extended the to Voorhies Ave, which was what they originally wanted to do? If my estimates are correct then you can equate the effects of this extension to the effects of the B44 SBS since its stops will be much more concentrated south of "U" than between "U" and Flatbush.

Well to Allan's credit, a SB-Rockaways route would be useful for neighborhood connectivity purposes and is not circuitous for those purposes. For purposes of Rockaway people getting to the subway, it is circuitous though. And given real-world financial conditions, it just does not make sense as a whole because the Rockaways are not that dense. He strives to encourage transit use in every nook and cranny of the city. I respect that and appreciate his ambition in that department. But I do not respect the fact that he stigmatizes the Junction at every chance he gets. Hell, even if he does not have a chance to stigmatize the Junction, he will create a chance to stigmatize it and then stigmatize it yet again. :-/ Or he brings up how others (who are probably a minority) stigmatize it. You could probably call it a case of trying to be too nice to the people. You just cannot please everyone. And again, these are their personal/political problems and nobody else's.

Meh. As I stated before if some people have a problem with the Junction and choose to avoid at all costs, to the point where they would actually shy away from a road taking them directly to the Junction (and follow one hell of a circuitous route to not transfer to a subway there), that is their personal/political problem and nobody else's, not even MTA's. It is not MTA's job by any stretch of the imagination to account for people's personal/political problems with certain areas by taking measures such as this. This is too much. As far as improving access goes, I can see that because getting from SB to the Rockaways is not easy. But avoiding the Junction to transfer to a subway should not have been a reason for the Q51. If that is such a great reason then this is just burning extra diesel on account of some people's ass-backwards notion that the Junction is [still] dangerous. This is not MTA's problem; neither would it make economic sense for a private operator to send his/her buses all the way to the other side of Brooklyn on account of this when it is much simpler to just keep the buses on a direct path to a train station that is just as good as any other and is not located in the middle of Fort Apache.